LAND LAW: Charge - Sale of land - Default in repayment of banking facility - Public auction of charged property by order of court - Whether bank aware of alternative proposal to redeem charged property at higher price - Whether bank obtained best possible price - Whether conduct of sale within purview of court and not bank - Whether bank complied with relevant provisions of National Land Code and acted in good faith - National Land Code, s. 257(d)

LAND LAW: Charge - Equity of redemption - Doctrine of - Whether has no place in Torrens System Land Code - Whether chargor's right to redeem charged property was preserved - Whether untenable to import doctrine into NLC

TORT: Duty of care - Breach - Default in repayment of banking facility - Public auction of charged property by order of court - Whether bank owed duty of care to chargor - Whether judicial sale within purview of court and not bank - Whether bank obtained best possible price - Whether bank complied with relevant provisions of National Land Code and acted in good faith - National Land Code, s. 257(d)

TORT: Defamation - Libel - Defamatory statement contained in title and contents of a book - Claim against author and printer - Serious allegations against a statutory body - Name of plaintiff specifically stated in title and contents of a book - Defendants' failure to give any evidence during trial - Whether words complained of were defamatory in nature - Whether words complained of bore defamatory imputations which referred to plaintiff - Whether book had been published to a third person - Whether title of book and words complained of in their natural and ordinary meaning imputed to plaintiff discreditable conduct or lack of integrity

TORT: Defamation - Damages - Claim for general and aggravated damages for libel - Serious injury to reputation, credibility and integrity of a statutory body - Allegation of corrupt and dishonest institution - Allegation that institution acting as an illegal money lender - Defendants' refusal to apologise - Whether award of general damages was in order to vindicate plaintiff's reputation - Whether plaintiff's reputation was aggravated when defendant refused to apologise to plaintiff

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Procedure - Appeal against decision of Senior Assistant Registrar ('SAR') - Party who was dissatisfied with decision of SAR on taxation of costs filed a review to Deputy Registrar ('DR') - Whether DR has power to review decision of SAR under present Rules of Court 2012 - Whether proper procedure is to file appeal to High Court

CONTRACT: Sale and purchase of land - Claim for compensation as a result of compulsory acquisition - Purchaser's entitlement to compensation - Purchaser failed to pay balance purchase price almost seven years from lapse of extended completion date - Whether acquisition was carried out between date of agreement and completion date - Whether purchaser was entitled to compensation as a result of compulsory acquisition after having failed to pay balance purchase price

An independent claim is a broad stand-alone claim. It contains a preamble that acknowledges the state of the art and all of the elements necessary to define the invention. Under Regulation 14 of the Patents Regulations 1986 (“the Regulations”), a “dependent claim” is one that includes all the features of one or more other claims and may also contain additional features. It includes all the features of the independent claim plus some narrower elements and features and is, therefore, narrower in scope than the independent claim. There is no reason why a dependent claim cannot be rewritten by way of amendment or notionally by reading onto the dependent claim to include all of the features of the independent claim as well as the features of the dependent claim without expanding the scope of protection of the originally claimed invention of the dependent claim. By so doing, while the scope of the independent claim might be broader than the scope of the dependent claim, the scope of the originally claimed invention of the dependent claim remains. Approached in that way, the claim differentiation approach construction rule is not displaced.

The Federal Court in SKB Shutters Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v. Seng Kong Shutter Industries Sdn Bhd & Anor has ruled that the dependent claims of a patent are invalid when the independent claim they are dependent upon is found to be invalid.

ORIGINALITY IN COPYRIGHT AND THE DEBATE ON PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE: A VIEW ON NIGERIAN LAW

K. I. ADAM*I. A. YUSUF**

INTRODUCTION

Copyright is perhaps the most popular and familiar branch of intellectual property law which is used for the protection of literary, artistic, and dramatic achievements. Eligibility to copyright protection rests mainly on the requirement of originality which arguably is the main force in the creative process of all arts. Ironically, this same condition has greatly undermined the influence of copyright in so far as protection of traditional knowledge is concerned. For instance, it is generally believed that copyright cannot protect traditional knowledge because the latter lacks originality. Surprisingly, materials or products derived from traditional knowledge have over time received copyright protection through their collection or compilation into books or other media of fixation. It is for this reason that some have heavily criticized the originality requirement as ineffectual or a mere subterfuge, since it fails to stand against copyright protection of mere collection of information or ideas which were originally generated by persons other than the collectors.

The truth is that the technical connotation of “originality” is not consistent with ordinary thinking whereby creativity or innovation is an integral part of an original work. This calls the fairness of the copyright system into question. The point being made is that where a principle designed to protect an item fails to achieve its target, it should, at least, not become a tool of oppression against such item. It thus becomes imperative that such a key principle should be re-examined to safeguard the integrity of our copyright law. It is precisely that task that has been undertaken in this paper where the nature of copyright and traditional knowledge is considered to highlight the factors of inconsistency between the two systems. It further examines how the technical manipulation of originality has, while seeking to achieve copyright objectives, ended up promoting predatory activities against traditional knowledge which should ordinarily be its candidate for protection. The paper therefore argues that the system could be strengthened to at least offer negative protection of traditional knowledge where the element of innovation or creativity is read into its test of originality. The next section examines the general notion of protection of intangible materials and its relevance to traditional knowledge.

. . .

* Lecturer in law, Department of Business Law, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria. The author can be reached at adam_kayus2003@yahoo.com.

** Lecturer in law, Department of Public Law, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria. The author can be reached at ibrahimyusuff@gmail.com.

17 November 2016 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2016; First enacted in 1968 as Act of Parliament No 38 of 1968; First Revision - 1989 (Act 409 wef 14 December 1989)

17 November 2016 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2016; First enacted in 1960 as Act No 20 of 1960; First Revision - 1969 (Act No 13 wef 14 April 1970)

Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of An Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation With Respect to Imports of Cellulose Fibre Reinforced Cement Flat and Pattern Sheets Originating Or Exported From the Kingdom of Thailand